Not really. He's intentionally being outlandish, but the central point is there must be a line drawn when determining what is the acceptable level of killing machine citizens can possess. Everyone can agree that your neighbor shouldn't have access to launch a nuclear weapon, but when it's only dozens they can kill instead of millions, people get more argumentative about their right to own these weapons.

The potential for dozens of deaths is still too much. Pretty much hunting rifles and shotguns that can hold no more than 2 rounds is the appropriate limit that should be available for sale. Everything else is simply unnecessary.

Not really. He's intentionally being outlandish, but the central point is there must be a line drawn when determining what is the acceptable level of killing machine citizens can possess. Everyone can agree that your neighbor shouldn't have access to launch a nuclear weapon, but when it's only dozens they can kill instead of millions, people get more argumentative about their right to own these weapons.

The potential for dozens of deaths is still too much. Pretty much hunting rifles and shotguns that can hold no more than 2 rounds is the appropriate limit that should be available for sale. Everything else is simply unnecessary.

MayoSlather:The potential for dozens of deaths is still too much. Pretty much hunting rifles and shotguns that can hold no more than 2 rounds is the appropriate limit that should be available for sale. Everything else is simply unnecessary.

But then how will I defend myself when the Nazis Commies U.N. invades?

I didn't RTFA, but given that it is Gizmodo I imagine they think that changing the law will actually affect what people do. But given that they are simply taking it for granted that time travel is possible, that shouldn't surprise anyone.

BuckTurgidson:Joe, your problem isn't guns, it's me mercifully suffocating you to death with a pillow to the reluctant but nodding acceptance of everyone on Earth who is not also as retarded as you are.

MayoSlather:Not really. He's intentionally being outlandish, but the central point is there must be a line drawn when determining what is the acceptable level of killing machine citizens can possess. Everyone can agree that your neighbor shouldn't have access to launch a nuclear weapon, but when it's only dozens they can kill instead of millions, people get more argumentative about their right to own these weapons.

Yes, I think most people would agree that there is a limit on the destructive capability of weapon that an individual should be allowed to possess, the question is what it this limit.

Not really. He's intentionally being outlandish, but the central point is there must be a line drawn when determining what is the acceptable level of killing machine citizens can possess. Everyone can agree that your neighbor shouldn't have access to launch a nuclear weapon, but when it's only dozens they can kill instead of millions, people get more argumentative about their right to own these weapons.

The potential for dozens of deaths is still too much. Pretty much hunting rifles and shotguns that can hold no more than 2 rounds is the appropriate limit that should be available for sale. Everything else is simply unnecessary.

I support the capacity restrictions that were in place in the nineties. Generally speaking, if you as John Q. Public can't get it done in ten rounds, you probably can't get done at all.

Mind you, I support mandatory training and proficiency to purchase or otherwise obtain, other than through inheritance, anything over a 20 gauge shotgun or a .22 rifle (long gun, .22 rifle-firing pistols do not count), but I know the odds of that coming to pass are very slim. Courses would include learning when it's not OK to introduce a weapon into circumstances, and guidelines for securing one's firearms against theft or other uses not overseen by the owner.

I have a device that can accelerate over two tons of metal and flammables to about 150 miles per hour. Similar devices kill around 30,000 people a year. Surely these are too dangerous for us common plebes!

Thousands of people keep large, unsecured vats of the dangerous chemical known as dihydrogen monoxide in and around their homes. This chemical is responsible for thousands of deaths per year. Surely we must end this household menace!

We're surrounded by a shiatload of items that can be used to wreak immense havoc if used incorrectly. What makes one any more dangerous than the next? If we started banning everything that a determined person could use to injure another person, we'd end up with practically nothing available to us.

Oh, and the analogy fails because most fictional time-machine havoc stems from causality disruption. You kill Hitler, and come home to Red Alert. You go to a 1950s prom, get your mom and dad together, and end up almost ruining the lives of everyone you know three times. You go back to Roswell and become your own grandpa, later going back to end the American Revolution. Causality is the big danger with time machines, and while guns can be argued to effect causality as well, nobody really cares about that particular argument, because when you use a gun, you generally don't have to memorize a lot of new kings when you get back home...

If time machines ever became a reality, there may have to be a thing like the Eye of Harmony (Doctor Who) to prevent the web of time of changing by keeping established events fixed. The best explanation that I've heard about this is in the Doctor Who audio plays where Rassalon first established time travel. He then went into the far future and found that another race would one day create time travel and wipe Gallifrey and the Time Lords out of existence. He then established the Eye of Harmony to protect his version of the web of time and then trap the future threat (called the Divergence) in a pocket, timeless universe, of his own creation.

Before time travel could be extended to the "masses" there would need to be an Eye of Harmony to prevent too much damage to the timeline.

As for guns, there are millions of Americans who legally own weapons. It's less than one percent of those who own guns who use guns to commit crimes and murders. So it makes no sense at all to say "Since so few gun owners use guns to kill, and the rest have them for protection, we need to ban all hand guns." And honestly, those who go through the process of getting the conceal carry licenses aren't the ones to fear. I'm honestly scared more of those who want to ban guns over those who legally own them and legally conceal and carry those guns.